3 Though the petitioner challenges the order of suspension passed by the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings in the year 2004 and also seeks regularisation of his suspension period from the year 2009, on a perusal of the materials and after hearing both sides, it is clear that originally, the petitioner was charged for fabricating the Court order by falsification of the records, based on which charge, a criminal complaint was lodged against him. Simultaneously, Departmental Proceedings were also initiated. In the Disciplinary Proceedings, a punishment was imposed under Rule 17 [b] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, and was imposed with the reduction in rank, thereby demoting him from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Copyist with minimum time scale of pay applicable to the post of Copyist and it was also held that the petitioner will be unfit for promotion for a period of three years from the date of his joining duty and the suspension period was directed to be created as extra-ordinary leave on loss of pay. Thereafter, it appears that the criminal case lodged against him ended in conviction before the Trial Court. Consequently, he was issued with another show cause notice in the year 2009 and was placed under suspension. Now, it appears that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court was set aside by this Court in Crl.RC.No.1213/2010 under order dated 17.07.2017. In view of the same, we are of the firm view that the second show cause notice for similar set of facts in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, is not maintainable in view of the Fundamental Rules.
